Legal Cost Specialists

New court fees

Court fees are due to increase from 4 April 2011.  In addition to increases across the board, are increases to the fees for detailed assessment:

(a) does not exceed £15,000 – £325
(b) exceeds £15,000 but does not exceed £50,000 – £655
(c) exceeds £50,000 but does not exceed £100,000 – £980
(d) exceeds £100,000 but does not exceed £150,000 – £1,310
(e) exceeds £150,000 but does not exceed £200,000 – £1,635
(f) exceeds £200,000 but does not exceed £300,000 – £2,455
(g) exceeds £300,000 but does not exceed £500,000 – £4,090
(h) exceeds £500,000 – £5,455

A link to the the full order can be found on the Court Fees section of Legal Costs Central, in addition to previous orders so you can make sure the correct amounts have been claimed in older bills.

(Have you set Legal Costs Central as your homepage yet?)

18 thoughts on “New court fees”

  1. From HM Courts Service;

    “Please also note that as from 1st April 2011 following the merger with the Tribunal Service cheques should be made payable to:

    HM Courts and Tribunals Service



    Note, 1st of April not 4th as when the new fees come in.

  2. Question: why has there been no comment from you and other defendant specialists on what seems to many one of the most striking recent costs decisions, that of Judge Stewart QC in Gray v Toner that interest should not be recovered on costs incurred under a CFA, as the client is not personally out of pocket? The appeal to the Court of Appeal was recently withdrawn for unknown reasons.

  3. A clerk at 39 essex street has told me that ‘at this stage, they are not sure if the appeal is going ahead’

    I’ll take your word for it though

  4. I heard withdrawn for financial reasons only. Have many Claimant’s had it raised against them? So far Jaggards raising the argument.

  5. Everyone and their mother is raising the argument. I would bet money that it gets thrown on public policy grounds (encouraging delay) when the point does eventually arrive at a higher level to determine. For all HHJ Stewart’s record this is still a decision of the Liverpool County Court and is not binding.

  6. Jacques Hughes

    Certainly not binding. The problem lies in the divergence in the treatment of interest between damages and costs. It does seem bizarre that you don’t get interest on credit hire charges – on House of Lords authority – because the claimant is not personally out of pocket, but you do get interest on CFA costs. There are very obvious parallels between credit hire agreements and CFAs, so the different treatment seems odd.

    The appeal is definitely withdrawn.

  7. Defendant Solicitor

    Appeal withdrawn for reasons of funding so I hear.

    I will be running the argument before a costs judge very shortly so we will see how the scco likes it.

  8. bit obvious, perhaps, but why does the client have to be out of pocket, for interest to be payable? Doesnt the fact of the changed intent surrounding CFA funding, place the onus back onto the Solicitor to fund the case effectively? Isnt the solicitor, whom after all is paying out for all the overheads and fees, have the right to say, I want the interest? Also, what is the point in having a CPD allowing a court to impose a “sanction” for late delivery of a bill by restricting or disallowing interest, if it isnt payable in the first place!

    There is, in any event, a very simple way around the issue (even tho it is accepted this decision is not binding), and as this will simply add more to the costs the Defendant has to pay, they will raise it with me at significant risk, so no worries 🙂

  9. Defendant Solicitor


    The solicitor has the ability to include a funding element in the cfa which is payable by the client. This compensates him for funding.

    And do claimant solicitors really need to make more money from cfa cases!!!

    Awarding interest on cfa costs is compensating someone for something they were never deprived of; that is, the ability to invest the money for return. The client is out of pocket in respect of damages but not in respect of costs. HHJ Stewart’s judgment is sound in my view.

  10. Mr Defendant Solicitor

    I cannot think of too many Insurers or their Panel Solicitors, whom have not “jumped on the bandwagon” of CCFA’s in the last few years, irrespective of the (sound) argument such were really unecessary (cue Campbell -v- MGN debates).

    Likewise, do Defendant Solicitors really need to makemore money over and above the massive funding contracts they have with the Insurers!!!! Hypocrasy is an ugly truth (even though I cant spell it correctly, I’m sure :))

    I am bouyed bty the fact all Defendants will forfeit any interest claims on their costs, but in response to your final point: the solicitor is deprived of the ability to invest their money for return, as the legislation in the UK foisted the burden of funding cases upon them. In effect, their Work In Progress account is their investment. Now, they are to be deprived of a return on that investment by this bizarre ruling

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top